Firearms Freedom Act
A gun activist in Montana is looking to test it:
With a homemade .22-caliber rifle he calls the Montana Buckaroo, Gary Marbut dreams of taking down the federal regulatory state.
He’s not planning to fire his gun. Instead, he wants to sell it, free from federal laws requiring him to record transactions, pay license fees and open his business to government inspectors.
I admire the spirit but I think this could be one of those bad lawsuits a few smart people have warned us about.
July 14th, 2011 at 9:57 am
Just this line shows you how ignorant the writer is of how liberties work (you know, belonging to us until Congress tries to take them away):
“Eight states have adopted his Firearms Freedom Act, which Mr. Marbut conceived as a vehicle to undermine federal authority over commerce.”
July 14th, 2011 at 10:46 am
I’ve been curious when these would start going forward. Its certainly a long-shot idea, but if he plays the public right, he could do something with it. Gary Marbut is probably the most knowledable person in the state of Montana regarding firearms law. He’s been a part of this fight for longer than some of us young gunnies have been breathing.
Keep your fingers crossed that he either starts the cracks opening or this dies quietly, I guess.
July 14th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
You may be in the right but that doesn’t mean you won’t be in the jail.
July 14th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Honestly, I cant think of anyone better to challenge the law in this way… Now I do think he is perhaps starting the challenge too early.
Also his case very well may hinge on what happens when the SCOTUS rules on Obamacare.
July 14th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Because it’s a commerce clause case, it doesn’t run too much danger of creating new, bad precedent. At worst, and most likely, is that it’s shot down under existing commerce clause doctrine. At best, and highly unlikely, the Supreme Court undoes Raich and Wickard, or at least partially undoes.
I don’t think this really has any chance of succeeding, but as long as he doesn’t bring the Second Amendment into it, there’s not a whole lot of chance for lasting damage.
July 14th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Certainly he has no chance at all of winning under current Supreme Court precedent.
I’m with Sebastian, entirely. He fails, almost certainly, but there’s no real room for new encroachment.
The court already told us, in Raich, that in-state non-commercial production of an item that “affects” interstate commerce is “Commerce” for the Commerce Clause.
If he’s actually selling things it’s even less of a stretch than the activity in Raich.
(I do think that in an ideal world of proper interpretation, “among the several states” would only apply to commerce that actually, directly involved crossing state lines… but that is not the world we happen to live in.)
July 14th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
True existing case law has perverted the original intent of the constitution. But attempts such as these are the way we get from the world we are in to the world as it should be, under our written constitution. The two alternatives are to bemoan the way things are or armed revolution. I think trying to work through the system is the best choice as long as there is some hope of success.
July 14th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
The difference between this and Reich is that the court specifically said that the problem was you couldn’t tell state x MJ from state y mj. That doesn’t apply here as each gun has to be clearly labeled under Montana law.
July 14th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Hey, Unc. I have a couple of rifles I need to regulate. In the mood? Both are .22. Marlin and Ruger. I have the ammo. Thinkin’ ’bout Farnsworth’s.
July 14th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
The problem is that the Supremes will never admit that any previous Supreme decision is wrong.
July 15th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
But I thought that everything is interstate commerce.